On 15:37 Wed 04 May , David Katleman wrote: > Would be interesting to know the original objection to Andrew's change > last year. >
If there was one, it never reached me either publicly or otherwise. The archives show no responses. > Absent that, I see no reason this could not be removed and the change > looks fine. > > When originally implemented 10+ years ago, disk space was considerably > smaller, as were buffers, so an accurate count was more relevant. > > Today multiple builds on the same disk are fairly common, making the > check itself even less useful. > > Add to that, the information being gathered is just for a WARNING, the > build will continue, regardless. Hardly the need for exacting accuracy, > especially since the df information is then compared to static estimates > of how much space a build will consume. > > Dave > (katleman) > This is my thinking too. I'm happy to extend the fix to just get rid of the check altogether if that seems appropriate. I'll need a bug ID for this. > -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://icedtea.classpath.org PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D 0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37
